Yes, while they're at it, the REAL team should indeed give us class methods and
class properties -- then people could stop using modules altogether and we'd
get the benefit of a limited form of namespacing for free. (Plus it would make
transitioning projects to REALjava easier).
C'mon, Mars, let us declare methods and properties as static -- how hard can it
be, it's just one more small word :-)
At 12:33 PM -0700 7/30/03, Will Leshner wrote:
>Yes. I completely agree. I would also like to be able to enforce Singleton
>behavior. It *might* be possible to do this ourselves if we could indicate
>that a constructor was private (this would be a new feature, not the current
>"protected"). I think we might also need class methods. I believe if we had
>those two things we might be able to guarantee Singleton-ness ourselves. And
>they would be great features to have anyway.
>
>Thomas Reed wrote:
>
>> The one aspect of this that I *can* see wanting support for is singletons.
>> It would be nice if there were some way of enforcing singleton behavior for
>> a class. (ie, prevent more than one from being created)
---
A searchable archive of this list is available at:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/search.php>
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listmanager/>
.
|